Saturday, February 3, 2018

Controversies do not always have two sides - Some are not really controversies

WaPo needs to demonstrate some responsibility when itcomes to oppressed minority groups

It might come as a shock to Ariana Eunjung Cha, a reporter at the Washington Post, that some controversies are manufactured. There are not two legitimate (or respectable) sides to everything that people disagree about. The Holocaust, for example, really did happen. Holocaust deniers do not have a legitimate point of view. Neither do creationists, white supremacists, 9/11 truthers or Alex Jones.

There really is no controversy regarding what constitutes the best care for people with gender dysphoria, at least not in the scientific and medical communities. The Catholic Church created a controversy surrounding transgender people because the acknowledgement of incongruent gender and natal sex in some people does not align with scripture.

Why then is Ms. Cha trying to be (infer the whine in my voice) “fair to both sides” in her piece about Ryan T. Anderson's book titled: Ryan Anderson’s book on transgender people is creating an uproar? Ryan Anderson does not have a legitimate point of view and he should not receive such attention from the Washington Post.

Anderson can self-victimize all he wants about trying to silence people who disagree with him. The Washington Post does not dedicate space to the conspiracy theories of Glenn Beck either.

The only reason that Anderson wrote his book is to support the teachings of the Catholic Church. Were the Church not so intent on doing harm to transgender people, the book would not exist. Moreover, Anderson was a music major who has a PhD in philosophy. His entire premise, that transgender people comprise a philosophy or world view, is illegitimate. It is preposterous to assign a philosophy to a variant of human sexuality.

Moreover, Mr. Anderson does not have either the training or experience to weigh in on medical science. Intellectual dishonesty does not create a creditable viewpoint.

Anderson relies upon, and Ms. Cha cites, Dr. Paul McHugh. McHugh is an 87 year old retiree who hasn't actively practiced medicine in some time. McHugh is also a conservative Catholic and defender of the faith. For that reason he is an advocate of gay conversion therapy. His prescription for people with gender dysphoria is a take on the same conversion nonsense. People advocating conversion, sometimes called reparative, therapy do not have a legitimate point of view. There are not two sides to it. Conversion therapy advocates are no more respectable than purveyors of witchcraft. Neither approach is based on science.

McHugh's “research” on LGBT people was a literature review that became an opinion piece published to a pretentious blog and not subjected to peer review. His objective was to support a religious opinion that he already held. He is no more respectable than the anti-vaccine crowd with their conspiracy theories.

There is no such thing as gender ideology. It is a made-up term coined by the current Pope. Being transgender is no more an ideology, theology or philosophy than are people who are on chemotherapy.

Had Ms. Cha done some independent research she might know that there is no intervention known to medical science to treat gender dysphoria. The best means of mitigating the symptoms, for some people, is to affirm their gender and become transgender. What that means is that they are presenting themselves to the world as their gender rather than their natal sex.

Mr. Anderson might do well to contemplate how he would feel if he were forced to wear women's clothes all the time. That is pretty much what a person with gender dysphoria might feel like if unable to affirm their gender. To attempt to marginalize people with a medical condition and then to distort aspects of that condition in order to gain support for oppressing them is unforgivable. People who do so do not have a legitimate point of view. Nor one that is respectable. The Washington Post needs to do a better job of editing.